https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99543 The HC addressed two issues: first, section 165(1) excludes private companies from the statutory meeting/report requirement, so winding up under the statutory-report default ground cannot be maintained against a private company; second, allegations of mismanagement, misappropriation and oppressive conduct fall within the special remedies for oppression and mismanagement (Chapter VI), and the residuary winding-up jurisdiction as a "just and equitable" ground is not an appropriate substitute where specific statutory remedies apply. The petition lacked supporting evidence and clean-hands requisite; accordingly winding up under the contested grounds was refused and relief should proceed under the statutory remedies. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:35:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99543 The HC addressed two issues: first, section 165(1) excludes private companies from the statutory meeting/report requirement, so winding up under the statutory-report default ground cannot be maintained against a private company; second, allegations of mismanagement, misappropriation and oppressive conduct fall within the special remedies for oppression and mismanagement (Chapter VI), and the residuary winding-up jurisdiction as a "just and equitable" ground is not an appropriate substitute where specific statutory remedies apply. The petition lacked supporting evidence and clean-hands requisite; accordingly winding up under the contested grounds was refused and relief should proceed under the statutory remedies. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99543